Mr. President, I would like to enter into a colloquy with my colleague from Louisiana. Mr. President, just as I expected, we have been in this back-and-forth show-and-tell on oil and gas issues instead of spending the time and working on a…
Mr. President, I would like to enter into a colloquy with my colleague from Louisiana.
Mr. President, just as I expected, we have been in this back-and-forth show-and-tell on oil and gas issues instead of spending the time and working on a real energy plan, one that is important for not only my State, my colleague's State, but for the whole Nation. So we go back and forth, and it is politics as usual in this Chamber. We just heard a nice presentation by my colleague from Wyoming about how it is all the President's fault the prices are going up and all these other issues.
Let me just say this--and I know my friend from Louisiana knows this--in Alaska, there is a clear indication what we believe when it comes to energy prices. We have communities that pay $9, $10 a gallon for heating fuel. We understand when costs go up what happens to our economies in our rural communities.
We also are a producer of oil and gas, and we understand the potential and job opportunities. But this last week, when we started on this bill, I know my colleague and I were just two of four people who said, no; we are not moving on this bill because we expected exactly what is going on now. We are just doing a little show-and-tell, having a little argument back and forth, and in another 24 hours or maybe 30 hours we will be off this bill and we will not have an energy plan.
When I go back home for our break, when I am talking to Alaskans--and I know the Senator will be talking to folks in Louisiana--they will complain about gas prices and heating costs and how much it costs to fill their cars or their RVs if they are trying to go somewhere on the weekends, and we have not done anything to make a dramatic change.
Of course, this idea of eliminating these incentives for the oil and gas industry I have opposed from day one, for a variety of reasons. One, if we are going to do real tax reform, then we should do a broader sweep, and no industry should be left off the table. Everyone should be part of the equation.
I have heard this from the industry--I know my colleague has heard this from the industry--that they are willing to be part of the bigger picture, but do not single them out because poll numbers say they are a demon of some sort or people do not like them. Let's talk about real tax reform. That is one debate.
The other debate is, if we really want an energy plan, then let's really do one. Let's focus on opportunities, and let's quit putting out pieces that one side puts down because it sounds good for their brochure, and then the other side puts one down. Let's really focus on something that will make a huge difference to this economy.
As I mentioned, in Alaska fuel is expensive in our rural communities for heating, and communities in Fairbanks, which is a very urban area, can pay upwards in the winter of $1,000 or maybe more per month in heating costs, making their ability to survive very difficult.
As we work on these energy projects and what is important, let me put another thing in perspective from Alaska. People think in Alaska all we care about is oil and gas. Well, we do. It adds a lot of jobs. But we also care about renewable energy. I know I have been on the floor of the Senate talking about that. My colleague has been on the floor talking about renewable, alternative energy. It is all part of the equation, how to ensure we develop a plan. We diversify our energy resources, and then we deliver it for the betterment of this country and economically in order for us to survive.
In Alaska, for example, as we work on our oil and gas development, we are also moving forward on renewable energy. In our State, just about 25 percent of our energy production for use in the State is renewable energy, with the goal to be at 50 percent by 2025. We have a plan because we understand the value of it.
I want to show a chart I have in the Chamber, and then I know my colleague has comments, and we will probably go back and forth a little bit. But I want to show you this one chart.
When I came into office--and my colleague over here talked about
Well, I think the Senator said it in the question in a way. It is a lot of Presidential politics. I think what I hear when I go home is--and the Senator probably hears it too--that people are frustrated with that activity.
Think about this: Just a couple of weeks ago, we passed a bipartisan transportation bill. Unbelievable. People say we cannot do things together. Seventy-four votes moved a bill, with very diverse views, as we all know. But we worked it out. We spent 5 weeks doing it after all the committees' months and months of work. And what did we end up with? A great product that went over to the House, that now sits there languishing and not having anything happen to it.
What is interesting, if we do not do a good energy plan, here is what happens: asphalt, which is a petroleum-based product which builds those roads, only goes up. When that goes up, that means now the roads we want to build become less. It is not complicated.
Why are they not doing this--I think even some of their own Members were surprised that they had to be told by their leadership to change their votes and do a certain type of vote. Now we are in this no-end product. In other words, we are not going to end up with anything. I do not get it. I know they will go home just like the Senator and I, and they will hear the same thing: jobs, gas prices, and construction and the housing market, what is happening? These are things we hear about. I am surprised.
If I can make a comment that the Senator just christened one of our new ships coming up. It has Icebreaker capacity to work for Shell to do what? Go right here.
Well, absolutely. As a matter of fact, as we know, this line--this is the pipeline that brings resources from here down to Valdez and ships it throughout the country and the world. It is about 10 percent of the oil for our country that comes from Prudhoe Bay up here.
What is amazing about this development is, as it moves forward, it will obviously provide even more. Also, as the Senator said, with the map there, it is about jobs. I mean, when we think about this development, this could be upwards of 54,000-plus jobs estimated by an independent research arm. Plus these jobs pay very well: on an average, $117,000 a year. I do not know about you; I think that is a good-paying job.
Some of those ships will be refurbished and some of the work that is being done is out of the Port of Seattle and Tacoma and that region. It is a nationwide aspect. Think about this. In 2011, the oil and gas industry produced 9 percent of the new jobs in this country.
Let me repeat that: Nine percent of all of the new jobs in this country came from the oil and gas industry. It is the fastest growing industry at producing jobs.
If I could add, in this Chukchi/Beaufort, for example, it is estimated that the cumulative state, local, Federal value over the next 50 years in terms of revenue stream is upwards of $100 billion. If we then talk about the payroll over the next 50 years for the same two areas, it is $150 billion.
What happens to that $150 billion that people get paid? Exactly. They buy a house. They maybe put their kids through college or they are vacationing or they are improving their lifestyle. They are moving up, and that kind of money is significant.
It has a multiplier effect that is hard to measure, but it is real. Anybody seeing somebody making $117,000, they are spending that money in the economy. That is why we see the job growth we see here. Again, to the principal debate we are having tonight--and we are the minority of the minority in a way--we need to get back to the basic issue of what do we want in this country in a diversified, well-delivered energy plan. We can get there. For example, we had a bill, and the other side threw down the same old talking points a few weeks ago--to drill everywhere one could imagine. It is about drilling but doing it responsibly, in the right areas, with the right design. They had Bristol Bay, the fish basket of the country, where 40 percent of the fish are caught. They want to drill there. I cannot vote for that. It is a balanced approach that we need.
If I can, I will add one more point before we finish. If these incentives are so bad, then why are we at a 10-year high in production? Why do we see in Alaska more independence than ever before? Probably in the Senator's State I venture to guess--I remember Anadarko, a very small company, which is now a very big one. We can look at these different companies and part of the incentives are utilized to take hard-to-get areas and make them more profitable so they can produce them. The result is that we now have more gas, for example, than we have ever had, and the price dropped so far that people are excited about it, which happens--if we talk to the petrochemical industry, they love these low prices because they are producing more opportunities in this country to produce products we used to produce overseas. So there is a ripple effect. People say these are bad incentives. Actually, we are producing more. They are paying one of the highest tax rates, as the Senator said. So we are getting money back on our investment. They are high prices because we don't have a comprehensive energy plan to have diversified energy portfolio and make sure we deliver it everywhere we can. It is not complicated.
Absolutely. I will tell the Senator we have been exporting for 40 years. We have been doing that because of our ability to do so and being able to get to the Pacific Asian market. Overall, the State here--through all its natural resources, we are a net positive in our export trade. We help lower the trade deficit for a variety of reasons--our fish, minerals, gas, and natural resources. So we are a huge contributor to this economy in a lot of ways.
I have been here only 3 years, and I still wake every day being hopeful. I am hopeful that at some point we will debate and have a real energy plan discussion. When we do that, the net result is that Americans will win, consumers will win, and national security will win. Everything wins if we have a good dependable energy policy that looks not only at today but down the road.
I think my friend from Louisiana made a very good point about conservation, about those issues. Thinking about the automobile industry, we came to their rescue and we got a lot of
criticism--all of us, the President included--but what is the result? Those folks paid back their loans, and they are more innovative than ever before. But they are also producing more fuel-efficient cars, which saves fuel, and it saves on the long-term dependency on foreign products.
Some people say that is not conservation; that was a bailout. It is a combo. It is multifaceted. For whatever reason, the other side sees that as just another government thing. I cannot remember, but it was a pretty good interest rate we got on that money and they paid it back and now they are being more innovative. Most recently, our automobile industry is building more natural gas fuel vehicles. They want to move forward in that area. I don't know if that will be successful, but they are moving forward because the price is lower. We have a lot of it, and that is an industry that is stronger than ever before.
As we sit talking about the importance of energy and how we have to develop our plan and have a diversified plan of action from all sources, as the Senator went through the list of the subsidies, we do it in every arena. We are trying to create a diversified energy portfolio for economic security, and it also creates innovation. We cannot depend on one type of fuel source. It is all part of it. People who say it can just be oil and gas are in another world. We have to have a multifaceted approach and then we have to do it and deliver it for the benefit of the American people. There is a way to do that.
Again, I struggled tonight because of the vote I took yesterday--one of four--that said we are not moving forward because I saw what was going to happen. By this weekend, I will be home talking to Alaskans and sharing their concerns about high energy costs in small villages and urban areas, and they will be asking the question: What are we doing? I wish I could say here is the answer and the price will go down. For the 3 years I have been here--and the Senator from Louisiana has been here longer--we have had a debate with no real substantive beef. People have put something out on the table, and the other side votes against it, instead of having a meaningful, real comprehensive energy bill. We have tax incentives here and there but not something that says this is what are going to do, so 20 years from now, all of us, including my colleague from Louisiana and my colleague from Colorado, can look at our kids and grandkids and say we did the right thing because we are stronger because we diversified our energy resources.
That is the fundamental issue we will not get to. We are in our own debate because we are a group of four. Two of them are out tonight. The rest are in a different debate.
I thank my friend from Louisiana, and I will conclude by saying again that her point about being smart and strategic is what we are saying. No one is saying either/or, that it has to be this or that. It is a combination of things. Some will be more expensive today but maybe less later.
Think about the technology around the cell phone the first time it came out, which used to be a box about this big, and you plugged it in your car and the big receiver would be in your trunk. It cost several thousand dollars to buy that technology, if you remember, and people were saying: No one is ever going to do that. Now you can go to the 7- Eleven--or in my State it would be the Holiday store--and buy throwaway phones. It is amazing what can happen when you allow some expansion of this knowledge and technology.
Oil and gas bring new technology. The Senator mentioned directional drilling, for example, which is new technology being developed in our State and her State to bring opportunities that Shell gas is now doing--all kinds of opportunities.
When you think of the security level, I know the Senator from Colorado, our Presiding Officer here, has been in the Armed Services Committee, where we talk about this all the time. How do we get the biggest consumer--the military--to find new alternatives? And they are experimenting.
But what is amazing--and we heard it last week and the week before-- is that our friends on the other side are wondering why the military is looking at alternative fuels. They actually asked, what gives you the authority to do that? Well, actually, when it costs you almost $400 a gallon for diesel fuel on the front lines of Afghanistan, I think that is a good reason. They should be looking at what kinds of alternatives they can use.
I have seen what they are doing. They are doing some amazing things with solar panels and small devices. And what is important about that for the military is they can move more rapidly through areas so they won't have to worry about where is the diesel truck for energy. But for rural Alaska, it is important in our rural villages where it is $10 or $11 a gallon for heating fuel, and now there is technology that, instead of taking up a whole room, is portable, and they can move it, they can use it, and it saves consumers.
So there are all kinds of things we should be doing.
I know the other side will say: Those things cost too much; these things cost too much. When you are at the R&D stage, things always cost too much because you have to move slowly to develop and create the markets. But the military is a huge driver of a market, so I am excited that they are in these areas. And I oppose the idea of some Republican Senators and House Members who are saying they shouldn't be doing anything experimental. Absolutely, they should. They are a consumer of the product. Let's have them give us some innovation.
People may forget that the same people who were doing the energy development in the early 1960s are the ones who started the Internet, from which we all now benefit. Imagine in the 1960s if we had said to the military: Oh, we don't want you testing whatever they were calling that Internet system. That is bad. You get out of that business. Where would we be today? Now, as the parent of a 9-year-old, I might have a different view on this. I may not want my son on the Internet. But it made a difference in our economy and everything else that is going on.
To conclude, I would say we have a chance to develop, to diversify, and to deliver a real energy plan if we focus on it. That is what we should be doing. So I thank my colleague from Louisiana, and I thank the Senator from Colorado, who is our Presiding Officer tonight, for allowing us to have a little rant time here in our own world. But I think the world we talk about is the same world almost everyone in America is living in, with high gas prices and wanting real solutions.
Anyone who says there is a magic bullet and the price will go down-- that isn't happening. I support the Keystone Pipeline, and I know my colleague from Louisiana supports that, but that won't lower prices tomorrow. I support, for a variety of reasons, a long-term plan--jobs and other things--but it won't lower prices tomorrow. Drilling in Chukchi and Beaufort is important to me. I think in the long term it will create jobs and it will lower gas prices but not tomorrow. But these are the kinds of things we should be doing.
Will our investing in conservation to ensure that our commercial buildings and houses are more efficient turn a dollar right away? A little bit. But over the long haul--I am doing an energy retrofit to my house in Anchorage. I am going to save some money. It will go in and go out because I have to put some money aside for my son's education. But I will have more money. So it pays over time. Nothing happens overnight. It drives me crazy when I hear the other side say that this is like magic and tomorrow things will change. I wish that were the case. We all do. But we have to have a plan to get there.
I thank the Senator from Louisiana for joining me tonight. I thank her for standing tall when we took our vote yesterday. I think we made our point, and now we need to move forward, and hopefully we can get other people to follow our lead and do a comprehensive plan.